Phoenix, Ariz., Aug 7, 2009 / 04:10 pm (CNA).- Researcher and physicist Dr. Aldofo Orozco told participants at the International Marian Congress on Our Lady of Guadalupe that there is no scientific explanation for the 478 years of high quality-preservation of the Tilma or for the miracles that have occurred to ensure its preservation.

Dr. Orozco began his talk by confirming that the conservation of the Tilma, the cloak of St. Juan Diego on which Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared 478 years ago, “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.”

“All the cloths similar to the Tilma that have been placed in the salty and humid environment around the Basilica have lasted no more than ten years,” he explained. One painting of the miraculous image, created in 1789, was on display in a church near the basilica where the Tilma was placed. “This painting was made with the best techniques of its time, the copy was beautiful and made with a fabric very similar to that of the Tilma. Also, the image was protected with a glass since it was first placed there.”

However, eight years later, the copy of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was thrown away because the colors were fading and threads were breaking. In contrast, Orozco said, “the original Tilma was exposed for approximately 116 years without any kind of protection, receiving all the infrared and ultraviolet radiation from the tens of thousands of candles near it and exposed to the humid and salty air around the temple.”

Dr. Orozco then discussed the Tilma’s fabric. He noted that “one of the most bizarre characteristics of the cloth is that the back side is rough and coarse, but the front side is ‘as soft as the most pure silk, as noted by painters and scientists in 1666, and confirmed one century later in 1751 by the Mexican painter, Miguel Cabrera.”

Following an analysis of some of the fibers in 1946, it was concluded that the fibers came from the Agave plant, however, noted Dr. Orozco, the researchers couldn’t figure out which of the 175 Agave species the Tilma was made from. Years later, in 1975, “the famous Mexican researcher Ernesto Sodi Pallares said that the species of the agave was Agave popotule Zacc,” Orozco explained, “but we don’t know how he reached this conclusion.”

Before concluding his presentation, Dr. Orozco made mention of two miracles associated with the Tilma.

The first occurred in 1785 when a worker accidentally spilled a 50 percent nitric acid solvent on the right side of the cloth. “Besides any natural explanation, the acid has not destroyed the fabric of the cloth, indeed it has not even destroyed the colored parts of the image,” Orozco said.

The second miracle was the explosion of a bomb near the Tilma in 1921. Dr. Orozco recalled that the explosion broke the marble floor and widows 150 meters from the explosion, but “unexpectedly, neither the Tilma nor the normal glass that protected the Tilma was damaged or broken.” The only damage near it was a brass crucifix that was twisted by the blast.

He continued, “There are no explanations why the shockwave that broke windows 150 meters afar did not destroy the normal glass that protected the image. Some people said that the Son by means of the brass crucifix protected the image of His Mother. The real fact is that we don’t have a natural explanation for this event.”

Dr. Orozco thanked the audience for listening to his presentation and closed by reassuring them that “Our Lady visited Mexico 478 years ago, but she remains there to give Her Love, Her Mercy and Her Care to anyone who needs it, and to bring Her Son, Jesus Christ to everyone who receives Him.”

What is the position of the Orthodox Church on the veneration of this image?

Is the Guadalupe image venerated as an Icon by Orthodox believers in Mexico?

Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.-- Gustave Flaubert

Curious ,,Didn't the Ecumenical Patriarch venerate it when he visited Mexico...Thank God he doesn't set the trend for all the orthodox faithful...I don't accept or believe in that image.....It could be a creation of the devil though ...

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Looks to me like he's giving the Latins a Orthodox Pope Benediction with that Questionable Image ........HummmmmmThat saying a Picture taken says a thousand words or more .And He's wearing his mantija in that lower picture....

Curious ,,Didn't the Ecumenical Patriarch venerate it when he visited Mexico...Thank God he doesn't set the trend for all the orthodox faithful...I don't accept or believe in that image.....It could be a creation of the devil though ...

.....EP even offered candle to the heretic phantasma of Lourdes, I do not know if he really believe that this phantasma is"immaculada concepciou",and Theotokos.Anyway,this is not the worst thing he ever did,we are so sinful,not worthy to have a better EP.If o Theos sent us an angel-like、saintly、orthodox EP,maybe we would murder him——like the unworthy monks did to St.Benedictus.

What is the position of the Orthodox Church on the veneration of this image?

Is the Guadalupe image venerated as an Icon by Orthodox believers in Mexico?

The image of Our Lady of Guadelupe is not part of Orthodox tradition, there is no feast-day appointed in any Orthodox calendar or menaion for this image's liturgical veneration, and there are no liturgical texts (not even a troparion or kontakion) associated with it. In short, the Guadelupe image cannot be venerated as an icon by Orthodox believers.

The image of Our Lady of Guadelupe is not part of Orthodox tradition, there is no feast-day appointed in any Orthodox calendar or menaion for this image's liturgical veneration, and there are no liturgical texts (not even a troparion or kontakion) associated with it. In short, the Guadelupe image cannot be venerated as an icon by Orthodox believers.

But do you really think that the Orthodox monastery in Mexico is in the wrong by depicting the image among its frescoes?

I can understand why the Christians of Mexico would not want to abandon this image of the Theotokos, as it is a large part of their history and national identity. It is a bit of a conundrum and presents several dilemmas, but I am not wholly convinced that the image should be abandoned entirely. Perhaps it could be modified to meet Orthodox iconographic standards, but still retain enough of a likeness to be identified by the Christians of Mexico.

Looks to me like he's giving the Latins a Orthodox Pope Benediction with that Questionable Image ........HummmmmmThat saying a Picture taken says a thousand words or more .And He's wearing his mantija in that lower picture....

Well, what is actually far more likely is that His All-Holiness was presented with a copy of the image as a gift and is holding it up for the cameras. Judging from the way it is being held by the Latin Bishop on the floor in the first photograph, the image is not actually being venerated. His All-Holiness received the gift and then held it up to be photographed.Pictures only speak the thousand words we wish to make them say. They say nothing on their own.

« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 06:19:18 AM by ozgeorge »

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Well, what is actually far more likely is that His All-Holiness was presented with a copy of the image as a gift and is holding it up for the cameras. Judging from the way it is being held by the Latin Bishop on the floor in the first photograph, the image is not actually being venerated. His All-Holiness received the gift and then held it up to be photographed.Pictures only speak the thousand words we wish to make them say. They say nothing on their own.

Thankful for a well intentioned gift? Imagine that.

Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

.....EP even offered candle to the heretic phantasma of Lourdes, I do not know if he really believe that this phantasma is"immaculada concepciou",and Theotokos.

By saying that She is "immaculada concepciou", this phantasma, as you call Her, didn't mean Her conception but Christ's. The date of the apparition proves that.

What???Are you kidding....??

No. What feast is there on March 25?

It's hard to imagine such kind of "a private devotion"exists in Orthodoxy,in which you can venerate some image neither proved nor venerated by the Church and in the Church.

Forgive me,I cannot follow your logic.All papists beleive that when the phantasma of Lourdes told Bernadette Soubirous "que soy era immaculada concepciou",she actually proved the latin doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Now you say all papist misunderstood the message,in fact the phantasma talked about the conception of Christ and the Mysterium of Euangelismos......if so,why she said"que soy era"? Do you think that phantasma try to say she/he/it is Christ himself?

Looks to me like he's giving the Latins a Orthodox Pope Benediction with that Questionable Image ........HummmmmmThat saying a Picture taken says a thousand words or more .And He's wearing his mantija in that lower picture....

Well, what is actually far more likely is that His All-Holiness was presented with a copy of the image as a gift and is holding it up for the cameras. Judging from the way it is being held by the Latin Bishop on the floor in the first photograph, the image is not actually being venerated. His All-Holiness received the gift and then held it up to be photographed.Pictures only speak the thousand words we wish to make them say. They say nothing on their own.

We agree.

Heaven forbid a logical and most likely correct answer is posted...it's spoils all the EP bashers' fun.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Forgive me,I cannot follow your logic.All papists beleive that when the phantasma of Lourdes told Bernadette Soubirous "que soy era immaculada concepciou",she actually proved the latin doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Now you say all papist misunderstood the message,in fact the phantasma talked about the conception of Christ and the Mysterium of Euangelismos......if so,why she said"que soy era"?

"Que soy era immaculada concepciou" doesn't mean "I am the one whose conception was was immaculate". It means "I am the immaculate conception". "Conception" means "formation of sb/sth", "making of sb/sth", or "begining of sb/sth". So the sentence can be changed into: "I am the immaculate begining". Beginning of who? Of Herself? No, of Christ-in-Flesh.

Forgive me,I cannot follow your logic.All papists beleive that when the phantasma of Lourdes told Bernadette Soubirous "que soy era immaculada concepciou",she actually proved the latin doctrine of Immaculate Conception. Now you say all papist misunderstood the message,in fact the phantasma talked about the conception of Christ and the Mysterium of Euangelismos......if so,why she said"que soy era"?

"Que soy era immaculada concepciou" doesn't mean "I am the one whose conception was was immaculate". It means "I am the immaculate conception". "Conception" means "formation of sb/sth", "making of sb/sth", or "begining of sb/sth". So the sentence can be changed into: "I am the immaculate begining". Beginning of who? Of Herself? No, of Christ-in-Flesh.

A monastery can be a part of the Church but never "the Church"itsself. One abbot or his whole synodia can be wrong,but never"the Church".

Such definition of "Immaculate conception"is yours,not of papists'.You can give whatever interpretation on the latin doctrine"Immaculate conception"as you want,but don't tell us you know better than all papists and the whole world what papists do believe.

It's hard to imagine such kind of "a private devotion"exists in Orthodoxy,in which you can venerate some image neither proved nor venerated by the Church and in the Church.

Do you, then, consider the Antiochian monastery of St. Anthony the Great in Mexico not being a part of the Church?

I would assume that the Church did not authorize said painting. Many churches are built, painted and decorated by local parishioners...and while they may be well meaning, they are not always canonically correct in their efforts.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

I would assume that the Church did not authorize said painting. Many churches are built, painted and decorated by local parishioners...and while they may be well meaning, they are not always canonically correct in their efforts.

The painting of the Theotokos of Guadalupe in the Antiochian monastery of St. Anthony in Mexico may be considered canonical or non-canonical. But it proves one thing - that the Guadalupe image is venerated in the Church. Not on a large scale, maybe only in that monastery, but it is.

They Must be Latin converts To Orthodoxy at that Monastery, and bringing there Demi Goddess worship of Guadalupe into Orthodoxy ,Hopefully Orthodoxy comes up with a swift cure For that infection before it spreads like a disease.......

I would assume that the Church did not authorize said painting. Many churches are built, painted and decorated by local parishioners...and while they may be well meaning, they are not always canonically correct in their efforts.

The painting of the Theotokos of Guadalupe in the Antiochian monastery of St. Anthony in Mexico may be considered canonical or non-canonical. But it proves one thing - that the Guadalupe image is venerated in the Church. Not on a large scale, maybe only in that monastery, but it is.

I'm sorry....you did not say that you know better than all papists about the "immaculate conception"doctrine;you actually say that you know better than all papists about the Lourdes apparition——all papists misunderstood the message of the "Lady",but you got the ture meaning of it.Oh,too bad for the poor "Lady",she should't choose Bernadette but you as the receiver of such an important message ....

But it proves one thing - that the Guadalupe image is venerated in the Church. Not on a large scale, maybe only in that monastery, but it is.

What it means is that the image is venerated in a church (lower c), not in the Church.

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.—St. Isaac of Syria

I'm sorry....you did not say that you know better than all papists about the "immaculate conception"doctrine;you actually say that you know better than all papists about the Lourdes apparition——all papists misunderstood the message of the "Lady",but you got the ture meaning of it.Oh,too bad for the poor "Lady",she should't choose Bernadette but you as the receiver of such an important message ....

And maybe you should choose another place to spread irony and contempt.

They must be Latin converts to Orthodoxy at that monastery, bringing their demigoddess worship of Guadalupe into Orthodoxy. Hopefully Orthodoxy comes up with a swift cure for that infection before it spreads like a disease...

It seems to me that the iconographer simply "got it wrong". The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is certainly not an Orthodox icon nor should it be venerated as such. What "should" happen is that it be removed and an Orthodox icon of the Theotokos take its place. This does not translate into the monastery not being a part of the Church anymore than one of us erring in our daily lives suddenly ceases to be Orthodox.

The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is certainly not an Orthodox icon nor should it be venerated as such.

What makes this image un-Orthodox apart from the fact that it wasn't painted by Orthodox? As far as the visual part of it is concerned, there is quite a similar Orthodox icon, Our Lady of the Gate of Dawn (http://tiny.cc/02LW1), venerated by the Polish Orthodox Church on December 26/January 8.

What "should" happen is that it be removed and an Orthodox icon of the Theotokos take its place.

Orthodox churches around the world have a lot of stuff to be removed - all these Da Vinci's Last Suppers, van Balen's Holy Trinities, Rubens' Virgin Marys, etc, etc. But we should remeber what was taught by St Seraphim of Sarov (if I remeber correctly) - that even poor iconography or not iconography at all shouldn't be ridiculled or treated with lack of repect, because a prayer said in front of a 19th century painting, but with a true faith, humility and love, is far more pleasing to God than an insincere prayer said in front of a perfectly canonical icon. And moreover, God does work mirracles through images which canonicity is questionable, vide: the myrh-streaming icon (painting?) of St George in Ramla, Israel (http://tiny.cc/5rDkA ).

I just can't believe that the Blessed Theotokos would appear as a Indian Pagan Goddess or resembles one just to convert the Indians to Christianity..For our Holy Mother to deceive the Indians just to convert them just doesn't seem right to me...That's why i don't believe in that apparition or in that image build on deceit...seem to me like satan's handy work...

The people torture them selfs by walking on there knees to that shrine some times for miles ..

Christ himself empowered the apostles to go out and preach and convert the people in the world ....Im sure he would of mentioned that he would be sending his Holy Mother in the future masquerading as a pagan goddess to convert by deception... Oh wait he did warn us about satans deceptions...

What is the position of the Orthodox Church on the veneration of this image?

Is the Guadalupe image venerated as an Icon by Orthodox believers in Mexico?

Our Antiochian parish here in Austin, Texas has an icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe (it's called something else on the icon though). It is however not visible. It's behind the iconostasis next to the table of preparation. Our parish was founded by Lebanese immigrants, btw.

They must be Latin converts to Orthodoxy at that monastery, bringing their demigoddess worship of Guadalupe into Orthodoxy. Hopefully Orthodoxy comes up with a swift cure for that infection before it spreads like a disease...

But we should remeber what was taught by St Seraphim of Sarov (if I remeber correctly) - that even poor iconography or not iconography at all shouldn't be ridiculled or treated with lack of repect, because a prayer said in front of a 19th century painting, but with a true faith, humility and love, is far more pleasing to God than an insincere prayer said in front of a perfectly canonical icon. And moreover, God does work mirracles through images which canonicity is questionable, vide: the myrh-streaming icon (painting?) of St George in Ramla, Israel (http://tiny.cc/5rDkA ).

If you read the link I posted earlier, the stories on the supernatural origins of the painting appeared many years after the introduction of the image. Looked at it from that point of view, it's a pious image that took on an "apparitional" meaning after the fact. The same can be said for the origins of the Dominican rosary. A pious custom that became blessed, I think decades, after the fact, with a story ascribed to St. Dominic. The online 1913 Catholic encyclopedia actually has very good (non-supernatural) descriptions of a great many Catholic customs, largely from Jesuit Herbert Thurston. Much of this phenomenon is an expression of "popular catholicism" that later (theologically modified) was made acceptable practice for believers. The brown scapular is another pious devotion - the church had to invent an entire theology that said it was not, in fact, a "ticket to heaven" notwithstanding the legendary promise associated with it. The St. Benedict is another popular sacramental with legendary promises associated with it.

Having an Italian on the seat of Peter helped give an official imprimatur to a lot of Marian devotions which were popular in places like Italy, Spain or Poland.

Anyway, to get back to the main topic, I personally do not believe there is anything supernatural in character to the Guadalupe image. There's nothing wrong with it, but I don't believe there's a Juan Diego, any more than I subscribe to the legends associated with the origins of the rosary. The problem is that if you have sympathetic people in the higher ups of the church, it tends to push the skeptics to the side, which is why (for me) Juan Diego's canonization is problematic, because it canonizes the entire legend associated with the image.

What makes this image un-Orthodox apart from the fact that it wasn't painted by Orthodox? As far as the visual part of it is concerned, there is quite a similar Orthodox icon, Our Lady of the Gate of Dawn (http://tiny.cc/02LW1), venerated by the Polish Orthodox Church on December 26/January 8.

This icon is beautiful! Is it truly Orthodox, or is it Catholic in origin?

This image, known as Ostrobramskaya, arose from Polish Roman Catholic tradition.

Actually, it was Orthodox first and known as Khersonskaya. It had "More honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious beyond compare than the Seraphim" inscription. It went to the hands of Catholics (first Byzantine, then Roman) at the time of the schism of Brest. In 1829, the icon was renovated and some Western features were added to it.